A little poem a friend sent me guys

[john9001]

Originally posted by Nash
"

I am not your enemy. And the (mystical and non-existant) White House lawn flag planters are not your enemy either.

we have met the enemy and it is nash.

[Thud]

I know it has been brought up before on these boards but this thread makes me wonder again.

Reading through all this I once again get the impression that many people believe that disagreeing with the war in Iraq (or any for that matter) is equal to not supporting, or even outright disrespecting the service(wo)men over there.

Are some of you really convinced of this?

[Yeager]

it doesnt seem to guarantee it outright thud but 40/60 seem to disrespect those in uniform by proxy, from what I see here.....

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Beetle, Saddam is cut from the same bolt of cloth as Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.  I'll not apologize for a president that had the guts and the will to take him down.

Indeed, indeed. But that was not the justification for the war in Iraq. If you look at this thread, you'll see what I said at the time pretty much agrees with what you're saying now. But - and it's a very big but - I stated that the purpose of the war was to remove WMD from Saddam's control, the removal of Saddam being a secondary consideration, or "by-product" as I put it in that thread. I had no idea of the level of insurgency that would follow, and I don't think Bush and Blair did either. The popularity of both Bush and Blair is now surely at its nadir since they each came to office, in each case as a direct result of this war.

But as we now know, there were no WMD in Iraq. I'm open to the possibility that during the UN prevarication leading up to the commencement of hostilities, Saddam might have had the opportunity to ship WMD across the border into Syria, but we'll never know for sure.

Just before we went to war in Iraq, WMD were being cited as the whole case for going to war, with the removal of Saddam as the icing on the cake. Now, the roles of these two factors are being reversed by people like yourself. Now it's "getting rid of Saddam was the whole point of the war, with WMD as the excuse to start it in the first place".

I hardly need remind you that there are other despots around the world who remain untouched. Top of the list is surely Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who has presided over the transformation from prosperity to starvation and poverty. Why isn't your president taking him out then? He's about as much of a threat to the US as Saddam was. Oh wait, there's no oil down there...

The CIA/MI6/Bush/Blair did a snowjob on us, and lied about the threat of WMD. Blitz was right - the US, as it turns out, was in no way threatened by Iraq - it's just redikulous.

Going to war on a false prospectus was bad enough, but inventing reasons for having done it, after the fact, is not much better.

[john9001]

not saying you can't be against the war, but when you protest the war publicly you become a propaganda tool for the enemy and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting thereby causing more deaths on all sides.

the people that think by protesting the war they will end it, only make it last longer. thats called the "law of unintended consequences".

if you feel the need to protest the war do it through the proper channels, write you congressman, etc.

[Yeager]

but inventing reasons for having done it, after the fact, is not much better.
====
most of the reasons I have come to understand existed before hand, and were not "invented" after the fact beet1e.  Unless of course you have some other reasons you have...err...uhmm....invented

[lazs2]

who cares what nash thinks so long as he can't vote and...

 he get's slapped down when he tries to sneak in yet another boring endorsement for liberal socialist democrats in our country.

lazs

[Thud]

Originally posted by john9001
not saying you can't be against the war, but when you protest the war publicly you become a propaganda tool for the enemy and encourage the enemy to keep on fighting thereby causing more deaths on all sides.

the people that think by protesting the war they will end it, only make it last longer. thats called the "law of unintended consequences".

if you feel the need to protest the war do it through the proper channels, write you congressman, etc.

I see what you mean, but that would take the only practical tool away from the people in case they would oppose the war right?
The only way to actually pressure the government is through public exposure and in order to prevent helping the enemy the public becomes de facto mute. Difficult dillemma...

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Yeager
most of the reasons I have come to understand existed before hand

...none of which was a reason for going to war in the first place. They were just side issues, fringe benefits, whatever. The WHOLE CASE for going to war was WMD. When I said inventing reasons for going to war was a bad thing, this does of course include promoting side issues into "reasons" for going to war, after the fact.

[Yeager]

Removing saddam Hussein from power was all the reason I would have needed Beet1e but there were a whole basket full that were good enough for me.  WMDs were the most immediate reason, I think most everyone thought he had them so I dont get angry over not finding them.

Thud,  when I have an issue with my government, I prefer to contact them directly via phone or email, maybe even a letter to the local newspaper editor.  But I will not prance up and down the street of my city holding signs and beating drums, looking foolish like some others and giving aid and comfort to those who prefer to kill us....these people that protest tend to be people I would rather not associate with.  Leftest radicals, socialists and communists.

Instead, I vote.

[beet1e]

So Yeager, on the basis of your support for the case for removing Saddam from power, do you also support a US armed invasion of Zimbabwe to topple Robert Mugabe? If not, why not?

[Goomba]

You know...

when Kipling wrote the poem, he faced the same problem of separating his actual message from convenient political grandstanding.

One's point of view on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the politics of war is simply not the point.

The poem speaks to the sacrifice made by a volunteer citizen-soldier; to those sacrifices made even for people who are so shallow that their opinions of a soldier flow with the breeze...i.e., refuse them service at the bar, then stand behind them and call them 'hero' when danger looms.

Public protest is a sacred right in this country.  It's even healthy, to the extent that it keeps a spotlight on our 'leadership' and keeps them accountable.  However, that does not mean that such protest cannot be counter-productive, ill-timed, off-point, ill-mannered or inappropriate in the extreme.  Having a right, doesn't always make you 'right'.

The point is to understand that the soldier is to be respected for the willingness to risk and sacrifice for others...even for those who are too scared to do it themselves.  The point is to keep political ire focussed on those responsible for political decisions, and to still be grateful for the sacrifices made by others.  They do it to support their country, and because they swore to do as they are asked by the civilian leadership of this nation, not to judge when and where they will serve.

To continue to rant on about the political issues (this horse has been beaten thoroughly to death already), and to blame the dutiful soldier for your displeasure over geo-political questions is just fifth grade dumb.  It's also transparently self-aggrandizing.  You simply cannot blame the soldier.

I personally am not happy with how the whole thing was handled, and whether it's deception, or stupidity, or one followed by the other, no longer matters to me.  It needs to be seen through to its best possible conclusion, for the sake of the civilians who need a decent life returned to them, for the sake of the power vacuum that would remain otherwise, etc...

To blame the soldier, to diminish or dishonor their individual sacrifices, to denegrate them and teach your children to curse a soldier in the streets for the wrongs of another...thats just plain disgusting.

If you don't think they sacrifice every day for your sake, and if you won't put on the uniform and ante up with the rest to find out for yourself, well...a man has to draw his own conclusions from that...

I may not 'support' the war, and I may believe that our collective administrations screwed the pooch in a big way, but I will never do anything other than sincerely thank a US soldier for serving this country.

Until I stand up to be counted among them, I have no right to do otherwise.

[Yeager]

Based on my knowledge on this subject I would say it is time to get Mugabe out of there.  Yes.......I assign this mission to the UK Spain Italy and Germany while we finish up in Iraq.  Deal?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by eagl
MT

It's not just this thread.  Nash has consistently demonstrated where he stands.

If you see yourself in either an "us" or "them" column, you're pretty much proving Kipling's point.  Thx for the confirmation.

Well, you lost me on the last one there. I called BS on the "us or them" attitude. BS means I disagree with it. Kinda like calling shenanigans on it or calling it bogus or calling it stupid...

I understand BS is an acronym and all, but I thought you would understand silly acronyms better than most ... Tommy.

[uvwpvW]

Originally posted by Yeager
Removing saddam Hussein from power was all the reason I would have needed - to send other people to die in Iraq…

How brave of you.

If the Iraqis didn't fight for their freedom why should anyone else? The Iraqis deserved their government. As do we all.

Nash makes some excellent points, and before any of you "I wanted to serve but never did" armchair-generals asks for my "credentials" - yes I'm a vet.